I am looking into having a system with the most update/safe from security aspect in Windows OS
My question is the following:
If the OS for instance is Windows Server 2003+ Latest SP+ hot fixes, is it considered as safe as I can get with Microsoft OR it is better to use a newer OS e.g. 2008?
I mean does the OS version make a difference concerning security holes if MS continues to support it?

Note: My question is regarding MS Windows and not securing a system in general


Server 2003 mainstream support ended almost a year ago. Reference http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?alpha=Windows+Server+2003+R2

I would not be implementing any new Windows Server 2003 installations unless absolutely necessary.

  • The extended support ends in 2015 as specified in your link. The SP support ends in 2009. Not sure what is the difference. – user65971 Jul 8 '11 at 14:17
  • See #3 on this page...support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy – Moab Jul 8 '11 at 14:41
  • So security updates are covered up to 2015 if I understand correctly. So for a short-term installation is Windows 2003 a bad choice? – user65971 Jul 8 '11 at 21:21

I'd go with at least 2008. There are a boat load of new security features that showed up in that five year span. The biggest change would be ASLR and BitLocker. On top of that you got UAC for those who still surf the net using an admin account. . .

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.